Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about two Penalty Charge Notices (PCN). He says an enforcement officer told him he could park at the location and he had done so for a number of months. Mr X wants a refund and an apology.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes correspondence about the PCNs. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has a parking permit for zone S1. The Council issued two PCNs because he parked in zone S5.
7. Mr X challenged both fines and said an officer had told him he could park in the street where he incurred the fines.
8. The Council considered but rejected his challenge. It said it was his responsibility to park in the correct zone and the sign said parking was for permit holders S5. The Council said Mr X could pay or use the formal process which would allow him to appeal to the tribunal. Mr X paid the PCNs but continues to dispute them.
9. I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have used the statutory process and then appealed to the tribunal. He could have used the Notice to Owner to make a formal challenge and, if that was rejected by the Council, he could have appealed to the tribunal and submitted he was told he could park at that location.
10. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about PCNs. If persuaded by Mr X’s submission, the tribunal could have referred the case back to the Council for further consideration of his point about being misadvised. Mr X decided to pay the PCNs rather than appealing to the tribunal and it is not our role to act as an alternative to the tribunal or decide whether the Council was correct to issue the PCNs.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman